No surprises here at all.
Just as I think we’re finally moving forward with all of this, something always comes up to push it back.
Personally, I’m very surprised this is the (copy/pasted) response being issued by Envato on the matter, considering I have personally had long discussions with senior members of the team on the matter and offered explanations to various members of the support team too.
Seems like either someone didn’t get the memo, a ‘brush under carpet and hope the problem goes away’ response, or Envato has genuinely decided not to be fully supportive of authors protecting/monetizing our work across YouTube. I really hope it isn’t the latter.
On top of that, instructions on dealing with YouTube claims are already outlined to the buyer here and here on Envato Market and many of us AdRev registered authors are choosing to put the information on our own item pages and within the item itself.
In my eyes. it’s up to the buyer to be fully aware of what they’re investing in before they hand over their cash. Envato need to get on board with this and use opportunities like this to explain to the buyer that they’re purchasing a License Certificate for this very purpose and explain the simple procedure to have them cleared (which I have now explained a thousand times on these forums!)
To penalise the composer, via an irrelevant, overly simplified rating system, because the buyer didn’t know what they were doing is just plain wrong and backwards.
Envato need to rub their eyes and follow this closely. Because, trust me, this is where our industry is heading right now.
Good work and congrats Leon! Totally deserved dude!
Hi I need a staff reply on this. It was told to me that it might no longer be possible to transfer files from an exclusive account to a non-exclusive anymore. Is this true? I just opened a non exclusive account which I wanted to put a few existing tracks from my exclusive account to but now I’m not sure if this is possible.ADG3studios said
illuminations saidYep, you can do that. Get a ticket ID and confirmation from support for the items’ you’d like to transfer. Then, when you upload them to the new account, state that you are transferring items from other account with the ticket ID noted. That prevents any confusion or additional delay in the review processing. The thing you cannot do, however, is repeat this process regularly for the same items, i.e. it wouldn’t be allowed to regularly transfer them back and forth every few weeks or months, for example. We can all use some common sense here.
As a side question to this topic can you remove items from your exclusive account, create a non exclusive account and reupload them? I’m considering pulling some low selling items to put them in other catalogs but I’d still like them to be on AJ but I’m not sure how I can do that.
Yes, I’d like to hear a straight answer from Staff (rather than support) about this too, as this was suggested to me recently by support. I also noticed Joel (jhunger) mentioned the same thing over on this thread too.
I think services like AdRev will lead to a big growth in this business. You need control to apply the rules/laws. Without control, people steal. If everybody was on AdRev, people would think twice before not licensing the music they use. And soon, it will all be general education and way more people will buy licenses. So thanks Alumno & all the others for pioneering & sharing (and risking bad ratings), in my opinion it does something good for everybody here. That’s long term thinking.
+1. Thanks lokohighman. This is exactly the mindset us composers need to have. We need to start looking at things on a long term basis rather than the present, and living in constant state fear that we might rattle the cages of a small minority of difficult or misinformed buyers.
Either that, or worse – people will steer away from Youtube and put their videos in less controlled environments. You can’t really force people into paying these days. You can’t even force ads, more and more people are using adblock software. New, free and/or ad free services will appear overnight. When facebook started monetizing, people started to leave. I’m guessing the same will eventually happen with Youtube, Soundcloud, in fact all web services going into a mature commercial stage still compete with free and/or ad free alternatives.
The ones who pay for licenses are almost never ‘forced’ they do it because it’s the right thing. People who think otherwise are usually ignorant, immoral or plain evil.
That been said, a little more control is always nice to have
Sure, they’ll always be a skimming of people that move from YouTube to other platforms, but their numbers will pale in comparison to those that don’t and remain on it. YouTube is absolutely colossal (see for yourself here) and I suspect will always be the de facto video streaming platform, mostly because it’s owned by Google.
Interestingly, and speaking of people wanting to get away from advertising, I’ve recently heard from AdRev that all AdRev registered composers will have an opportunity to be included in YouTube’s newly rolled out YouTube Music Key, a subscription based, ad free, music video streaming service. I’m not sure of all the details of this yet, but seems we’ll be able to upload ‘albums’ of work via AdRev, and presumably we’ll get remunerated for streams of our material on the platform.
It does appear that Google are trying something different from their usual ‘hit them with ads’ strategy here. Will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
But I guess if it hasn’t been a problem like you said Matt then maybe the pros out weigh the one con. I know I would be annoyed though. What if I made a video and purchased sfx/music files from 5 different locations and now right when I uploaded the video I have to fill out 5 forms? It would be a pain in @$$.
This is the thing Jeff. Firstly, if it had proved to be troublesome, I would never have opted to be an evangelist on the matter. I gave it a good year or so before I spoke openly about it, simply because I wanted to test the waters first. I was in a good position, as I already had a good number of licensed tracks out in the wild and on YouTube to begin with. With that, I haven’t had any headaches with retroactive claims.
Also, when a claim comes through on a users video, it gives the user the exact composer and track name. All they’ll need to do is use their corresponding License Certificate to clear it, either directly on the YouTube dispute form or via adrev.net/contact-us. And if they contact you directly, you can simply do it yourself for them in a jiffy, via your dashboard. This is why License Certificates are so important and crucial to the buyer. It really isn’t just a pretty bit of arbitrary text.
Also, you have to note that YouTube now reserve the right to see License Certificates and/or permission notes for so called ‘commercial use rights’ on user’s monetized videos anyway, (you may want to check this official YouTube video) regardless if it’s been fingerprinted or not. They’re becoming very strict with this themselves and therefore YouTube users are already being primed with the prospect of having to show they’re legitimately using third party content in their YouTube videos.
Sure, it could be seen as a pain in the @$$ right now, but that’s merely a result of years of people not having to show anything. I personally see it as a loop hole that’s been now finally being filled.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Guido. I’ve just found a bunch of my own stuff on that site too. As you’re an exclusive AJ author, you’ll have to raise a support ticket with Envato to let them know too, so that they’re aware of the site and take measures.Also, it’s also worth filing a copyright infringement case with Google directly here: https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=en-GB
By doing this, Google will check the site themselves and remove any links or search results to the site. This is something I routinely do, as many of these illegal distribution sites can have a pretty serious effect on the SEO and Goolge search side of things, especially if people manually search for your portfolio directly via Google. I’m currently in the process of trying to get another illegal site distributing my music removed, which is now appearing in third place on Google search when searching for my music.
Also, if you’re a Google/gmail user, you can set up realtime Google Alerts, so when your composer or track names are detected on the web, you’re instantly notified via email.
I love your music Matt, but on this specific issue I have to disagree.
I’m surprised Audiojungle has not said anything on the topic. Its just unprofessional to ask a client/customer to fill out a form and prove that they aren’t a freeloader days/weeks/months after they purchased it. You are frustrating and annoying a whole lot of your regular, paying clients.In a perfect world I agree there should be something in place that minimized theft and freeloading, but I don’t think this is it.
Thanks for airing your thoughts on this Jeff. Firstly, whilst I agree it’s not the perfect solution to preventing illegitimate uses of our property on the internet, I’m afraid it comes back to just that: it’s our property, not the buyer’s and not Envato’s. Ours.
You state that I’m frustrating and annoying my regular and paying clients, but I’m yet to see any real repeated evidence of this myself, so I’m afraid I have to take that statement with a pinch of salt. I’ve been using AdRev for nearly 3 years now and if anything, I’ve built good connections, relationships and much repeated business from customers through this, than if I weren’t involved in the tracking of my property online.
Sure, it’s early days and a relatively new concept. Of course, there are parties that still have to get on board with all of this. That includes buyers, libraries and composers alike. But this aversion always exists when a new idea emerges, simply because it’s human nature to resist change. As time progresses and people adjust to a new way of doing things however, only then it becomes accepted. That includes the acceptance from our buyers to present the License they had purchased when using our property on YouTube.
Right now, we’re in the midst of big changes within the music industry, especially in the online world and it really is becoming a case of adapt or die. This is one reason why I’m so open and passionate about this and encourage composers and libraries to take a second look at the situation. As Taco has mentioned, this is standard practice in the area of software and music library licensing for example, and should be no different in our industry. Why should it be? I honestly cannot think of one good reason why not.
With that in mind, the notion of ‘buyers having to prove they are not a freeloader’ really is an upside down way to look at it, and rather should be viewed as ‘buyers proving they are a genuine, paying License Certificate holder’. That’s the whole point of a License Certificate. Remember, we’re not selling music. We’re selling Licenses to our music. A very, very significant difference.
Regarding Envato’s stance; I certainly wouldn’t be speaking so candidly on the subject if I believed they had a problem with it. I have spoken personally with them on numerous occasions and enlightened them on the whole process to make sure everyone is on the same page and reassure that digital fingerprinting truly has a potential benefit to all concerned.
AlumoAudio saidBut why would Google suggest “cell” instead of “sell”? I wonder…
Google translate is miraculous at inducing migraines at the reader’s end.
True. And other typos evident too. Maybe this is how our friend genuinely speaks English?! Hats of for trying though. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with Russian.
Haha, cut him some slack folks! I can almost sense he’s got an interesting point to get across. Although that being said, Google translate is miraculous at inducing migraines at the reader’s end.